AI deciphers hymn on 4,000-year-old clay tablet to unlock mystery of ancient city of Babylon
Advances in technology made the discovery possible in a fraction of the time, according to a new study.
5
5
5
Without AI, it would have taken decades to decode.
The text, inscribed on an ancient tablet, is from Babylon, Mesopotamia - once the largest city in the world in 2000 BCE.
Babylonian texts were composed in cuneiform, the oldest form of writing, on clay tablets.
But they have only survived in fragments, meaning their messages are hard to decipher.
After digitising a selection of ancient texts, researchers at the University of Baghdad and Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) of Munich, uncovered an ancient hymn they believe Babylon residents would have sung.
"Using our AI-supported platform, we managed to identify 30 other manuscripts that belong to the rediscovered hymn—a process that would formerly have taken decades," said Enrique Jiménez, professor of Ancient Near Eastern Literatures at LMU's Institute of Assyriology.
Although parts of these texts were missing, scholars were still able to completely decipher the hymn of praise.
"It's a fascinating hymn that describes Babylon in all its majesty and gives insights into the lives of its inhabitants, male and female," added Jiménez.
Researchers believe children would have studied the hymn, which is comprised of 250 lines of text, at school.
Numerous copies of the hymn have been found inscribed on clay tablets from the era.
"The hymn was copied by children at school. It's unusual that such a popular text in its day was unknown to us before now," said Jiménez.
"It was written by a Babylonian who wanted to praise his city.
"The author describes the buildings in the city, but also how the waters of the Euphrates bring the spring and green the fields.
"This is all the more spectacular as surviving Mesopotamian literature is sparing in its descriptions of natural phenomena."
Excerpt from the ancient hymn
Here are some lines from the newly discovered hymn of praise:
"The Euphrates is her river - established by wise lord Nudimmud -
"It quenches the lea, saturates the canebrake,
"Disgorges its waters into lagoon and sea,
"Its fields burgeon with herbs and flowers,
"Its meadows, in brilliant bloom, sprout barley,
"From which, gathered, sheaves are stacked,
"Herds and flocks lie on verdant pastures,
"Wealth and splendour - what befit mankind -
"Are bestowed, multiplied, and regally granted."
The ruins of the ancient city of Babylon, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, are located some 85 km south of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.
Beyond the city and its pastures, the hymn also reveals new details about the lives of women in Babylon.
Women had roles as priestesses, which were described as being particularly virtuous.
They were praised in the hymn for their devotion and discretion.
Priestesses were famously celibate, and were among the professions established to to keep the population's birth rate under control.
Their "partners", mentioned in the hymn, are understood to be the gods they are devoted to.
The hymn also offers insights into the melding of different cultures in the early urban society.
For example, the inhabitants are described as being respectful to foreigners.
While researchers have uncovered unprecedented detail about ancient Babylon, there are more secrets to uncover.
Roughly 100 lines of the hymn's ending are still missing or mutilated, according to the study, so it is difficult to decipher what they might have contained.
5
5
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
How AI is coming for our top guns
Like countless other schoolboys, Greg Bagwell dreamed of becoming an RAF fighter pilot when he grew up. Unlike countless other schoolboys, he actually did so – beating thousands of others in a selection procedure as stringent as joining the SAS. First, recruits must be fit enough to withstand pressures of 9G during flight – equivalent to nine times the force of gravity on the body, and twice what a bobsleigh crew or a Formula 1 driver endures. Second, they must be capable of complex maths to plot manoeuvres and missile trajectories. Third, they must be able to do all of the above while being shot at. 'Short of becoming an astronaut, there aren't many jobs that are as selective,' says Bagwell, 63, who flew Tornados in Iraq in the 1990s and is now a Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. 'You need the hand-eye co-ordination to fly at supersonic speeds, while also doing the maths that gives you the 3D shaping of the airspace. It's like being a Formula 1 driver while also playing chess; only you're having to make each chess move in split seconds while travelling at nine miles a minute,' says Bagwell. It is no surprise that air forces seek high standards in fighter pilots. Their jets are hugely costly, and are often the first responders in hostilities, be it military reconnaissance of Islamic State bases in the Middle East, or dropping a bomb. Tales of their skills are also the stuff of history books and movies, from Battle of Britain aces such as Douglas Bader to space pioneers like Neil Armstrong, who flew combat missions in Korea before his journey to the Moon. But in a combat arena where the slightest human error can prove supremely costly, the future may lie in removing humans from cockpits – with those like Bagwell replaced by AI-controlled pilots. Brink of extinction Such scenarios may sound like the script of Top Gun: Maverick, in which Tom Cruise's ageing air ace is warned that his ilk will soon be replaced by UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). 'Pilots need to eat, sleep, take a p--s,' sneers a tech-minded superior. 'Your kind is headed for extinction.' This is no case of Hollywood hyperbole: if anything, the Top Gun scriptwriters may be behind the times. For AI-controlled fighter jets are already holding their own against human pilots – as demonstrated in tests this summer carried by Helsing, a German drone maker and AI firm. In a collaboration last month with the Swedish fighter-plane maker Saab, two Gripen E combat jets engaged in mock dogfights over the Baltic Sea – one jet flown by a regular pilot, the other by a pilot guided by Helsing's Centaur AI software. While neither aircraft came out on top, Centaur gave its human counterpart a run for its money. Given the rate at which AI learns, it may be just a few years before it gains the edge. 'Right now, there are still pilots out there that will have a chance, but that will change fast,' explains Marcus Wandt, Saab's chief innovation officer, and a former fighter pilot. 'If you need to retrain for a new weapon system or new tactics, it will be difficult to stay on par.' Helsing was founded as a start-up by German tech entrepreneur Torsten Reil, an Oxford-educated gaming developer, and Gundbert Scherf, formerly an aerospace expert with the German ministry of defence. Their motivation was Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014, which they saw as proof that Europe needed to harness 'autonomous capabilities' to survive against aggressive dictatorships. Having been proved all too right by the war in Ukraine, Helsing has become one of Europe's biggest start-ups, making advanced air and sea drones. Such unmanned weapons have proved game-changers in Ukraine, helping to keep Russia's far bigger army in check, crippling Moscow's Black Sea fleet, and destroying dozens of Russian bombers recently at an airfield in Siberia. Helsing is now valued at more than £10bn, with Spotify founder Daniel Ek's investment company having led a £500m funding round in June. The age of drones The firm's success has already led some to question whether Western governments should even continue investing in manned fighter aircraft. Britain, for example, is purchasing 12 new US F35-A fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear bombs. The F35 is the world's most advanced fighter jet, yet is still built around the concept of a human at the controls. Last year, the Tesla boss Elon Musk described the F-35 as a case of Western militaries training for yesterday's war. He posted an image on X of a Chinese drone swarm, saying: 'Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.' He added: 'Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones…Will just get pilots killed.' Defence officials argue that planes such as the F-35 take decades to design, and that AI is still too much in its infancy to design an entire plane around. But Helsing put on a recent demonstration of Centaur's skills at the Global Air & Space Chiefs' Conference, a top-level military and industry forum in London hosted by the RAF. On a flight simulator set up in a hotel suite next to the conference centre, two former 'Top Guns' – ex-Tornado pilot Stewart Campbell and ex-French Mirage pilot Benoit Planche – fought two Centaur rivals in 'beyond visual range' combat. This is when the enemy jet is too far away to see, but still within missile and radar range. That sort of military engagement makes success more reliant on computing heights, trajectories and speeds, to maximise the chances of a missile finding its target. The projectiles have limited fuel time, so if a pilot doesn't fire them at the most opportune moment, the target may dodge or outrun them. 'We want to hit the enemy before they hit us, which means we're running maths in our head constantly about heights, speed, loft and so on,' says Campbell, who left the RAF this year after serving in Afghanistan and the Red Arrows. 'Ultimately, I think you're going to see AI take over because it can do those calculations far better than I can.' Campbell also points out that, contrary to the impression given in films, the average fighter jet has limited weaponry. His simulated jet has just four air-to-air missiles – fewer than the number of bullets held by the average revolver. 'I can't just fire with impunity; I need each shot to be lethal,' he points out. 'The chances of the AI getting it wrong are much less – especially if you're a stressed-out junior pilot, being shot at in a part of the world you're unfamiliar with,' he adds. AI advantages The Centaur AI pilots honed their skills on a simulated platform where they were given a simple reward function: 'Kill the other aircraft and don't die.' They then played each other constantly, absorbing the equivalent of more than 100 years' flying time in a few days. The process is broadly comparable to Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that took on – and ultimately defeated – chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in the 1990s, evaluating 200 million chess positions per second. In last week's demonstration in London, Centaur won some of the battles while the pilots won others. Campbell admits, though, that AI also offers other advantages. 'From a risk point of view, you've not got a human being in that cockpit. Nor are you paying a pension or its healthcare.' A running theme at the conference was the risk that AI could creep up, like a stealth fighter jet, on an unwieldy defence establishment. Several speakers suggested that unmanned AI jets could be operational by 2040. 'The F-35 is the best fighter around today, and will be for a good while yet,' says Prof Kenneth Payne, an expert in strategic studies at King's College London. 'But AI will be able to do what human pilots can well before the next RAF fighter comes into service. 'We need to think seriously about whether that aircraft needs a cockpit,' he continues. 'Some leading AI figures think it will surpass human-level intelligence at many, even most, tasks within a few years. I don't think enough people inside defence are taking that seriously yet.' The RAF's next fighter will be the Tempest, a joint British-Italian-Japanese venture due in service by 2035. It is expected to offer both manned and unmanned options, although Bagwell seems unconvinced that pilots will be dispensed by then. 'A manned platform can do all kinds of things, from dogfights and escorts through to intercepting an airliner and looking into the cockpit to see if there is a hostage situation. There isn't a machine that exists today that can do all those things,' he says. 'In combat scenarios, planes will also be flying into deeply hostile airspace, with jamming, spoofing and other attacks on connectivity. If you lose that, you may still need a human being in the loop.' 'Besides,' he adds, 'I spent all my life as a pilot being promised stuff that never quite meets the glossy brochure. And in life-and-death situations, where a pilot might be trying to stop a missile attack on the UK, are we happy to put 100-per-cent trust in machines?' 'Our time is done' Others, of course, argue that the very act of flying requires putting 100-per-cent trust in a machine, and that the whole trajectory of combat aircraft has been away from the reckless 'barnstormer' image of the last century. Indeed, in a memorable article about a tour of a US Air Force base in 1969, the hellraising journalist Hunter S Thompson mourned the demise of the 'daredevil, speedball' flying ace. Today's pilot, he wrote, was a 'supercautious, supertrained, superintelligent monument to the computer age'. In that sense, AI pilots may simply be the next logical step – if not taking over entirely, then flying certain missions deemed too risky for humans. And much as men such as Campbell may still represent the elite, for now, he accepts that the Top Gun legend could be about to end. 'When I joined the Royal Air Force, I was told that a time would come when fighters wouldn't be in the cockpit,' he says. 'Ultimately, when we fight a war, we want to win, and if AI becomes capable enough to win, then I accept that our time as pilots is done.'
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
Thousands of Army soldiers may be suffering brain damage from blast of own weapons
Thousands of soldiers and veterans may be suffering from brain damage from firing heavy weapons, official studies have revealed. Defence chiefs have confirmed for the first time that machineguns and anti-tank weapons emit harmful blast waves which can cause traumatic injuries. Explosions create a wave of 'overpressure', a spike in the surrounding air pressure above normal atmospheric levels. The impulse can be so strong it penetrates the skull. Once inside the brain, the energy causes microscopic damage to blood vessels and neurons. Repeated exposure can overwhelm the brain's ability to heal itself, causing serious long-term neurological damage, according to researchers at the University of Birmingham. Symptoms of blast-related TBI overlap with those of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), making it difficult to diagnose. These may include: severe headaches, visual disturbances, sensitivity to noise and light, memory loss and a sense of personality change. Speaking to ITV, Lieutenant Colonel James Mitchell said: 'If we go back twenty years to the early Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns the perception was that we were seeing concussion and mild Traumatic Brain Injury predominantly from impact and exposure to substantial blast. 'Over especially the last five to ten years we are starting to appreciate the role of what we call 'low level blast', this is predominantly exposure of our service personnel to blast overpressure from our own weapon systems.' Lt Col Mitchell, a Royal Army Medical Service neurologist, added that while exact figures were not known, 'thousands' of serving personnel have been exposed to harmful blasts, with figures potentially even higher for veterans affected. Most at risk are those who have been repeatedly exposed to heavy weapons, including mortars, some shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons, 50-calibre rifles and machine guns, or explosive charges. The University of Birmingham is playing a key role in the mTBI Predict study in partnership with the Ministry of Defence. Neuroscientist Professor Lisa Hill said when the brain is damaged, it releases biomarkers, biological clues that can help scientists understand what and where the damage is happening. She said: 'If somebody gets injured, it changes the structure and function of the brain, but it also releases chemicals that you wouldn't normally see. 'So if we can measure things in blood or in their saliva, that can tell us how potentially bad their injury has been and what symptoms they might go on to get.' Professor Karen Mullinger, an expert in neuro-imaging at Nottingham University, is working to identify patterns of damage with sophisticated brain scanning technology called OPM MEG. Professor Mullinger also plans to study soldiers in real time, to see which activities are highest risk. She said: 'We can scan these soldiers before they go and do a training exercise and then immediately after, then we get a baseline which is specific to them. 'If the 'wire paths' have been damaged by blasts or whatever else it might be, then the function is going to change.' The information collected from these trials could shape policy, such as modifying the most damaging weapons or reducing blast exposure in training exercises. Last night, the MOD said: 'The health and wellbeing of our Armed Forces is critical and we provide specialist medical treatment for Traumatic Brain Injuries at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre. 'We know blast exposure causes physical change or injury in the brain that is only now becoming detectable and recognised with recent advances in the field, and we know there are alleged long-term effects of this exposure, but causation has not yet been shown and is the subject of much ongoing research. 'Using the latest research and advanced technology, the UK and our international partners are actively working on advancing the diagnosis, management and rehabilitation of patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. This includes over £4m in funding for the latest advanced research, which will help both military and civilian patients.'
BBC News
4 days ago
- BBC News
Mineral v chemical sunscreen: Which one should you be using?
Some people are trading chemical sunscreens in favour of mineral versions because of fears over toxicity, pollution and effectiveness. Is there actually any difference? Mineral sunscreen is having a moment. Amid concerns that so-called "chemical" sunscreens may be bad for our bodies, brains, and even coral reefs, mineral-based formulations have become the fastest-growing share of the global sunscreen market. But debates over "chemical" versus "mineral" sunscreens are riddled with misconceptions. Many commonly repeated claims – such as mineral sunscreens not containing chemicals; that chemical sunscreens have been proven harmful; or that chemical sunscreens absorb UV, while mineral ones only reflect it – are misleading, even false. The confusion begins with terminology. "Everything is a chemical," points out Brian Diffey, emeritus professor of photobiology in dermatological sciences at the UK's University of Newcastle and inventor of sunscreen's UVA star rating. What people call "chemical" filters are more accurately termed organic, since they contain carbon-hydrogen bonds, says Diffey. Inorganic filters (often called mineral), primarily titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, lack those bonds. All are chemicals. Seeking to protect our skin and bodies from the Sun is not a new trend – nor are sunscreens, organic or inorganic. Ancient Mesopotamians used umbrellas; ancient Greeks, wide-brimmed hats. Along with various coverings, people applied concoctions to the body. In Africa, the use of ochre-based pastes, still used as sunscreen by people such as the Himba in Namibia, dates back at least 285,000 years, while the Roman writer Cornelius Celsus advised slathering the skin with olive oil. It wasn't until the 19th Century, however, that scientists discovered ultra-violet radiation (UVR) – and realised that some ingredients, like quinine sulphate (derived from a tree bark), could absorb it. Scientists duly recommended it as a sunscreen. By 1930, researchers had found a number of other ingredients that absorbed UVR, including aesculin (from trees such as horse chestnut) and larch bark tannin. Though they wouldn't meet today's SPF standards, in terms of how they protected the skin, they all were organic ("chemical") sunscreens. Later, dozens of other ingredients were added to this list – including those produced by mixing together different substances in a laboratory to induce a chemical reaction. Often referred to as "synthetic chemicals", these types of ingredients – including avobenzone, oxybenzone, octisalate and octinoxate – have been found to absorb UV rays far more effectively than their predecessors. Another type of sunscreen came to market, too: "mineral" sunscreens. While they might seem more "natural", the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in today's sunscreens are usually lab-produced. The great deflection debate At first, it was thought that organic sunscreens absorbed UVR, while inorganic sunscreens physically reflected and scattered UVR away from the skin – a belief that was perpetuated further in a 1970s United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monograph. This idea is still commonly heard today, including from seemingly authoritative sources. It also is partly why inorganic sunscreens sometimes are also called "physical sunscreens", implying that they block out UV rays like an umbrella deflects raindrops. "People say that mineral or inorganic sunscreens reflect ultraviolet radiation," says Antony Young, professor emeritus of experimental photobiology at King's College London and a lifelong researcher of sunscreen efficacy. "And that's not true." In fact, modern titanium dioxide and zinc oxide only reflect or scatter 4-5% of the UV range, an authoritative, peer-reviewed 2015 study found. They absorb the other 95%. Indeed, scientists have been aware that inorganic sunscreens absorb UV since the 1980s – so much so that the authors of the 2015 study already seemed exasperated with having to provide even further proof. Their study emphasised "yet again", they wrote, "that the true function of these insoluble 'physical' or 'mineral' UV filters is in fact identical to that of the soluble 'chemical' UV filters. "These data indicate clearly that these filters act primarily as UV-absorbing materials, and not as UV-scattering or UV-reflecting materials." They're not even actually "reflecting" that 5%, adds Diffey: "They scatter it." UV rays aren't bounced off the surface of the inorganic particles. Instead, he says, "the light rays go into the medium. They bounce around from the atoms or molecules. Some of them then will come back out again. And that's called scattering." Meanwhile, many sunscreens, even some marketed as "mineral", use both organic and inorganic UV filters. But in general, experts say, whether a UV filter works by absorbing, reflecting or scattering UVR doesn't really matter. The amount of heat generated in the skin by absorption is negligible – and a tiny fraction of the heat generated from the Sun's exposure itself. Ultimately, says Mary Sommerlad, a consultant dermatologist based in London and British Skin Foundation spokesperson: "You don't need to decide whether you want your UV energy to be absorbed or reflected, because they're working in pretty much the same way." That is, by reducing how much UVR your skin absorbs to protect it from damage and risk of developing cancer. Particles and solutions If organic and inorganic sunscreens work so similarly, why do they feel different? It comes down to solubility. Most organic filters are soluble, meaning their active ingredients can be dissolved in a medium like water or oil. Inorganic sunscreens are not: their particles remain intact. As a result, inorganic sunscreens can feel thicker and give a white cast, while organic filters can provide smoother, clearer formulations. As chemistry advances have shrunk inorganic particle sizes down, the white-cast effect has decreased. These "nanoparticles" (less than 100nm in size) of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide have led to their own set of concerns around skin penetration. But even this minuscule particle size doesn't penetrate more than the stratum corneum – the outermost skin layer – thus preventing systemic absorption. Most organic UV filters operate at the surface of the skin, too. Because sunburns develop at the upper layers of the skin, a UV filter must bind to the stratum corneum in order to work, say experts. Like inorganic sunscreens, therefore, organic sunscreens absorb the vast majority of UV at the skin's surface. But it is true that some organic filters are systemically absorbed. "Some active ingredients will find their way through to the bloodstream," says Diffey. "Whether or not that's doing us any harm or not remains to be seen." So far, there isn't good evidence that it is. The vast majority of research finding risks of chemicals like oxybenzone has been performed on animals, using massive amounts. In one 2001 study that sparked concern about endocrine disruption, for example, baby rats were fed extremely large quantities of UV filters like oxybenzone for four days. Those that consumed oxybenzone had uteruses that were 23% larger than rats that didn't. But when later researchers put these numbers into perspective, they found that – to reach the same systemic concentration of oxybenzone the rats had – a human would need to apply a 6% oxybenzone sunscreen every day… for 277 years. Why are animals exposed to so much of a particular ingredient? Because it helps scientists determine the potential safety limit. "The reason for these studies is to determine how much is safe," says Michelle Wong, chemist and author of the book The Science of Beauty who frequently tackles sunscreen myths online. As a result, "they are always looking for an effect. They will generally use a large enough amount of the ingredient… to elicit some sort of effect. "If they don't, then they don't know where the line is." So far, the threshold at which the ingredients pose a risk seems to be many times higher than the quantity in which people are using them. One scientific review published earlier this year found no evidence that UV filters like avobenzone and homosalate can damage DNA or cause cancer in humans – and that blood levels of these chemicals from topical sunscreen are far below the amount at which they might have an effect. In one 2004 study, for example, 32 people applied creams made up of 10% oxybenzone. Four hours after application, both men and women had slightly lower levels of testosterone. But after just four days of application, the differences between the appliers and the control group disappeared – leading the researchers to conclude that differences in the hormones weren't actually from the sunscreen itself. Even so, because ingredients like avobenzone are absorbed into the bloodstream, out of caution regulators like the FDA have requested more safety data from manufacturers. More like this:• Sunscreen: Are you using it correctly?• Sunscreens: Safe or toxic?• Why sunscreen is not enough to prevent sunburn The effects of organic filters on the environment – particularly coral reefs – are a little more unclear. Studies that have raised concerns have mostly been lab-based experiments; real-world impacts may be different. One study, for example, found that while UV filters were detected in the seawater across 19 tourist hotspots in Hawaii, 12 locations showed less than 10 parts per trillion of oxybenzone – the equivalent of 10 drops in a water-filled football stadium. The area with the highest concentration, Waikiki Beach, had 136 parts per trillion. All were at levels far below the concentration at which the lab-based studies found damage to coral reefs. However, in 2018 Hawaii made the move to ban the sale of sunscreens containing chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate. "If you have places with a high load of tourists going in, it is not unreasonable to stay cautious and say, 'Yes, there may be additive effects'," marine scientist Jorg Wiedenmann said at the time. Still, while much of the focus regarding coral toxicity has been on organic UV filters, inorganic UV filters may have an effect too. Meanwhile, some marine biologists point out that the far larger (and better-proven) threat to corals is climate change – and that the biggest bleaching events have been in places without tourists. While scientists haven't yet proven any concrete, adverse effects to humans of using organic (or inorganic) sunscreens, aside from occasional side effects like allergic reactions, we can't say the same of excessive UV exposure. At worst, it can lead to skin cancer, the most common type of cancer in countries including the US and the UK. If it spreads, the deadliest type, melanoma, has only a 35% five-year survival rate. This is why the best sunscreen, experts say, is one you are happy to use. For some people, that is a sunscreen that is smoother, clearer and absorbs more quickly. For others, that might be a sunscreen that has fewer toxicology concerns, no matter how theoretical. "SPF is SPF," says Young. "It doesn't really matter what the ingredients are." -- For trusted insights into better health and wellbeing rooted in science, sign up to the Health Fix newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
